Siskel & Ebert Review 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) Peter Hyams

DISCLAIMER: I do not own any of the footage I used. Copyrights belong to their respective owners. This video is covered by "fair use".

[@TodaySatan]

This movie had a deep impact on me growing up. Awesome film!! The story, the music, etc. Saul Goodman!!

[@captainhaire]

The casting alone. And Ebert just nails it.

[@AlanCanon2222]

I remember being 16 and thinking Helen Mirren (I'd never seen her before outside of sneaking peeks of Excalibur (1981) on cable) was pretty hot with her Russian accent. And I'd lived and breathed 2001 as a child (born the year it came out, but dad had the soundtrack album and a college professor bought me the novel when I was used as a guinea pig interviewee for his child developmental psychology course) even while enjoying Star Wars and the first three Star Trek movies. I'd read the 2010: Odyssey Two novel previously, on the day it was published, so I knew the plot going in.....actually, I'd read 2001 before I saw it, so that was just right. You're right, it is a great cast. Although I'm in awe of Schieder, Lithgow, Balaban, and Mirren, my personal MVP for the movie is Elya Baskin as Maxim "Max" Brailovsky. "You shouldn't feel so bad, the same thing happened to me when I did this before." "When have you done this before?" "Never!" matches the attitude of some (not all) ex-pat Russians I have known.

[@kevinturner4936]

BRILLIANT editing job. You make me want to see 2010 again on the big screen.

[@AlanCanon2222]

I was 16 when I did, and I have to say, as Dave says to Frank in the lip-reading scene, "I'm afraid I agree with you."

[@dhruvojha1168]

This is one of the most underappreciated sequels in the history of filmmaking. It very well explained what happened in the first one also held its own throughout the story. The only reason it isn't as good as the first one is because 2001: A Space Odyssey had groundbreaking visuals for its time (though this movie have those too but without the touch of Stanley Kubrick's direction, some holes can be identified) and the introduction of world politics. The first movie was a pure sci-fi visual masterpiece. This movie tried to convey a message in a somewhat "cheesy" way which I don't think goes well with sci-fi fans (similar to what the new Star Wars tried to do) . But all things aside a beautiful and amazing Movie and a very well deserved sequel to a wonderful film. This movie has an amazing story, it ties up all the loose ends and makes it easier to understand what the story of the first movie is. I can say this surely that without this movie 2001: A Space Odyssey is an incomplete adventure and if you want to enjoy it to its full, watch this movie.

[@aydenmarietta4906]

That’s a pretty good way of putting it. I really enjoyed 2010 as well. Obviously it’s not as groundbreaking as 2001, but it doesn’t have to be. It followed up to the first film really well and explained the plot in the beginning with some text. The ending with HAL’s redemption was also very emotional. Also did a good job of concluding the story very well.

[@dhruvojha1168]

@@aydenmarietta4906 Exactly!!

[@aydenmarietta4906]

@@dhruvojha1168 I also forgot to mention the scenes with Dave. They’re super creepy and unsettling

[@dhruvojha1168]

@@aydenmarietta4906 yeah they were on the verge of making it a horror movie considering that era😅

[@aydenmarietta4906]

@@dhruvojha1168 Agreed. The only scene that I don’t understand is the part where Dave visitors dying mother and brushes her hair. He doesn’t show himself to her so I don’t understand how she probably knew he was the one brushing her hair.

[@gregorylapointe4157]

Siskel's out to lunch here with his review, I think this is a fantastic movie, underappreciated for sure, and for once I agree with Ebert.

[@robaquarian]

I get chills when HAL says I've got a message from someone that says he's David Bowman and then tells Floyd to turn around.

[@carlsaveus1735]

"It is important that you to believe me. Look behind you" 🥶🥶🥶

[@Reticuli]

What the hell was Siskel going on about with a probe? This film is way more realistic than even Interstellar. Their trajectory precision is an important focus. They even get the orbital mechanics during the first spacewalk transit on the computer screen. And unlike 2001, this film actually has ACTING. Kubrick's film is an art house film. Amazing in its own way, but not really entertaining or moving outside of being scary and mysterious. The biggest issue with 2010, other than the fact there's the USSR, is the use of sound during the space sequences.

[@rochskier]

The space walking scene to board Discovery works because it is an important bit of world building and setting the scene for later events in this picture. On the purely technical side, I find that these early '80s effects hold up quite well.

[@Locateson]

I like this movie because it deals with epic themes, it does not explain everything that happens in 2001, it doesn't even try to, except for some details. But It transforms the significance of Bowmans experience from the first movie into something for everyone. It does not play in a galaxy far away, not in a star-trekian system. It's close, really close. And yet it is epic in scope. It's brilliant. With a few exceptions, it's as close as you can get for "hard" sci fi in a Hollywood movie. Also, "Will I dream?" should be one of most prominent movie quotes ever.

[@DeannaGilbert616]

This young SF fan LOVED this movie when it came out. Siskel was full of it. Also, the something wonderful was the birth of new life. Like…holy crap!

[@andy-in-indy]

2010 was one of my favorite movies as a teenager. I don't remember this review of the movie, but I think both of them missed the point if they found the ending dull or disappointing, or even a message about peace. (It was about there being a second source of intelligent life in our solar system!). And Gene, just because someone makes it to Discovery doesn't mean that everyone does. In fact, one of those two did not come home from this mission. And if you want slow, go watch 2001 again! Definitely worth the 2 hours, but read or watch 2001 first for the best experience.

[@mariop8101]

Rather read 2001, and watch 2001 with FFW button pressed on.

[@themcadamsminute8494]

The way you created this clip is outstanding. Excellent work.

[@mrmeerkat1096]

I think this is a good movie in it's own right. Also its a good follow up to 2001.

[@Reticuli]

Certainly a worthy follow up to the 2001 novel.

[@Wallyworld30]

I was 8 years old when 2010 came out and my parents bought me a Vinyl Record with 2010 storybook. Hal 9000 talks on the record alongside the classical music. Most forgotten good movie ever made.

[@marccru]

This was a really good movie. It's not 2001! However, it was very enjoyable and since they had to do a sequel, I will take this. Acting was a much bigger part of this film than it was to the original. If you like character development, it has much more of it than 2001.

[@bobbelleci9995]

Personally, I feel that this story should have had all no-name actors with great presence. Roy has been in a lot of movies and is identified as an inspiring actor, but I think the movie, led by the director and script should speak for itself without the need for A-list celebrities. This is part of the reason 2001, for me, was awesome in addition to everything else. Were they thinking they needed A-list actors like Scheider, Lithgow, and Mirren to save it? It did get mixed reviews. I liked 2010, but it could've been better. Then again, there's always "Contact."😊

[@michaelperkowski641]

I remember seeing this film in 70mm 6 six track dolby stereo sound. Great sound and picture. Enjoyed the film very entertaining. It has great special effects, happy to see Hal 9000 and monolift again. Liked Roy Schneider's performance. I liked the message of peace at that time during the cold war. I think gene siskel was to hard on the film.

[@AlanCanon2222]

In 2022, with Putin in Ukraine (people reading this a year from now will know how it turned out, which I don't), the movie seems less dated, queerly, than it has in years.

[@k1productions87]

The Cold War aspect was not necessary, but fit with the period the film was made. Though I think a remake could (and should) be made to be more accurate to the book (you can scrap the "2010" part and just call it "Odyssey Two", which was the book's subtitle), and in doing so, will be closer to today's world, with China being the primary competitor in spaceflight (as the entire subplot with the Tsien spacecraft was missing from the film, and the timeline of some events were flip-flopped to compensate).

[@donsample1002]

Did Gene watch this movie? His description of the clip he's about to show at the 2:00 mark in this video has zero relationship with what's going on in that clip.

[@PerfcTiming]

I find this to be true of a LOT of Siskel's reviews. If I remember correctly, his review of The Big Lebowski MOST DEFINITELY indicated that he hadn't bothered to watch beyond the first 10-15 minutes and he was making things up like a kid suddenly forced into an oral book report on The Great Gatsby where he basically says "So there was this cat named Gatsby and everyone thought he was GREAT, the end".

[@Reticuli]

I'm thinking maybe he was trying to trip on acid and relive the 60s when he watched it and was disappointed that it wasn't the same sort of experience as 2001... not to mention it made it difficult for him to follow the plot of this.

[@thomaslogan1624]

He clearly hated the idea of a sequel to 2001. His loss for thinking that way. This was a great sequel

[@davewanamaker3690]

This is a great sequel. How else are aliens going to explain something? It made perfect sense that it would be on a screen so they would understand. It wasn't Dave Bowman's job to stand there and explain it all. He was the catalyst and they delivered a message. Sometimes Siskel and Ebert try to pick every movie apart except European art films. @@thomaslogan1624

[@k1productions87]

@@thomaslogan1624 He'd have loved it if Sean Connery was in it, LOL

[@s.m.whiteII]

Not surprised, they got “Bladerunner” wrong as well as others......

[@FormerHumanX]

To be fair they were reviewing the theatrical version of Blade Runner with the bad narration and happy ending.

[@JasonBagherian]

I love the narration :-)

[@FormerHumanX]

Kubrick privately criticized 2010 for destroying much of the mystery and awe from his own film. Part of that blame must be laid at the feet of Arthur C. Clarke of course, since he wrote the 2010 novel.

[@Reticuli]

Part of? 2010 is an almost exact representation of the book other than the extra two lines of text in the last message from Bowman. Clarke also wrote the novel for 2001, which was already explaining quite a lot, like what that whole hyperspace sequence was showing. Granted, Clarke at that point was now having to interpret for the novel what Kubrick had done visually, but considering Kubrick's film was based on Clarke's short story and a screenplay they co-wrote together, I'd say Kubrick was behaving like he had a stick up his ass about it. Further in the Odyssey series, surprise, surprise, even more gets explained.

[@JoseyWales44s]

I seem to recall Clarke explaining that "2010" was one of a possible infinite number of possible sequels and that it should not be seen as affecting the original source material. Basically sounds like he was relegating to the category of "fan-fiction".

[@PerfcTiming]

@@Reticuli There was also the substitution of the probe to Europa because the movie did not have the Chinese spacecraft subplot, and the useless death of the one cosmonaut sent in a pod down to the monolith which wasn't in the book. Also, the degree of animosity between the US and USSR wasn't in the book. Hyams added it as an element of tension and that's what resulted in the somewhat abysmal final message in the movie containing the last two lines of "Use them together. Use them in peace".

[@robertobryk4989]

@@Reticuli > 2010 is an almost exact representation of the book other than the extra two lines of text in the last message from Bowman. The movie is missing the whole subplot where the Chinese landed on Europa.

[@N37tron_Danc3]

Was Clarke's novel 2010: Odyssey Two that bad?.... or was it criminally underrated?

[@LastAvailableAlias]

My main issue with 2010 is it felt like it wanted to apologize for 2001 being so mysterious by explaining everything for the viewer. If Gene thinks the movie was too slow for the viewers back then he would be in for a world of hurt today. This review had a quality Siskel and Ebert fight. lol I have to agree with Roger. Duh, we know some of the things we should expect. Would Gene have panned Titanic because he knew the ship was going to sink or Saving Private Ryan because he knew the landing was going to succeed?

[@k1productions87]

Actually, the book explained everything as well. Kubrick deliberately left several things from the book out in order to make it more mysterious. There was nothing in 2010 that Arthur C. Clarke didn't want the audience to already know.

[@HragFarraGaming]

I remember catching this on cable tv and thought woa.. Roy Scheider is in a sci-fi film? Watched it and was amazed how great the film was including its visuals for its time. Btw Jason.. parev stes 🖐.

[@theivory1]

I was ten when this came out and had just watched 2001 for the first times of many. They are both great movies.

[@k1productions87]

This was a great movie, while 2001 was a great film. Go to 2001 if you want to be awed and amazed, but don't care too much about character and story. Meanwhile, go to 2010 if you want a compelling narrative, charming characters and a suspenseful setting in a more traditional moviegoing experience. Both equally valid, and both rightfully stand on their own. All that being said,... young Me enjoyed this film much more LOL

[@AlanCanon2222]

I love this movie, and I live five minutes' walk from Churchill Downs, where Kentucky has that "big, big horse race" mentioned by Heywood Floyd in the film. 2001: a Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time by a factor of ten. I'd say to critics of 2010, "What, were people just supposed to somehow *not* make movies influenced by 2001?"

[@matthewmartinbooksbymatthe7193]

Siskel just rambles and rambles and then finally when Ebert gets a chance to talk, Siskel constantly interrupts him and rushes him through his thoughts

[@TheVCRTimeMachine]

I like my Sci-Fi slow and thoughtful...The slow burn movies... "Moon" "Arrival" "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" "Ex Machina" "GATTACA" the Odyssey movies...Great stuff

[@maskedmarvyl4774]

"It's a lot better than a half hour of Twilight Zone, you've got to admit that". Siskel: "Oh, I Love Twilight Zone!" lol! What an asshat Gene is being here. He actually seems to be trolling Ebert at the end.

[@joevecchio6988]

This is one of my favorite films, primarily because of the acting. Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, all did an outstanding job. The little bits of conversation: "You can't make good hot docs indoors!"

[@mgabrysSF]

Oh that's brilliant. I love the presentation. Too bad Siskel never read the BOOK. It does actually follow the BOOK. What he wants wouldn't follow ... THE BOOK.

[@k1productions87]

Actually, it doesn't follow the book all that well. The entire Tsien spacecraft subplot is missing, and the order of some events were swapped to compensate. Also, the design of the Alexei Leonov (as described in the book) was far superior to what we got in the film, from a spacecraft design and scientific logic standpoint. And the book did not have anything resembling the cold war tension we saw in the film. Honestly, I feel the book deserves a second movie adaptation. It could simply be called "Odyssey Two" which was the second book's subtitle. And it could open the door to getting the third book adapted into a film as well.

[@powerboatguy2308]

Underrated movie, but when you are the sequel to a masterpiece this is what can happen.

[@bwuh]

Great editing!

[@theaussieviking8555]

2010 is a very watchable film and shows real political tensions in it. But only being able to watch it on BluRay (and a crappy conversion no less!) is a shame. I have read the entire series and would love to see them do the sequals with today's tech!

[@troubleondemand7703]

Lol @ Siskel. "2001 was a masterpiece" but also, "I found 2010 to be good looking, real good looking, but slow" I love 2001, but it didn't exactly move at a great pace.

[@huwturbervill8476]

Hal didn’t try to stop them sending a probe; he tried to talk them out of leaving in the Russian ship

[@PrinceGastronome]

I love Ebert.

[@chrlz904]

I'm with Rog.

[@superturkle]

no scene in any movie ever made me hyperventilate like poor john lithgow did in the spacewalk scene. for those who understand whats happening, it is exruciating. 2010 may be one of those films that divides the audience into two camps: those who are fans of astronomy and those who arent.

[@waytospergtherebro]

China was the actual menace in the book so they did drop the ball on that part.

[@k1productions87]

The Tsien subplot is the whole reason I want to see a second movie adaptation of Odyssey Two. And I'd like to see a more book-accurate version of the Alexei Leonov.

[@patrickshields5251]

You got the year wrong. It's 1984, not 1981.

[@JasonBagherian]

Cheers, I must have been tired.

[@JasonBagherian]

So this is another one that Siskel didn't like. I think I read somewhere that Siskel liked Saturday Night Fever but did he ever review it on the show?

[@patrickshields5251]

@@JasonBagherian He did, but that was back when the show was local. The show aired nationwide in late 1978.

[@JasonBagherian]

@@patrickshields5251 It's a shame I can't find the review online.

[@fenwar9060]

@@JasonBagherian I do believe it was on youtube one time, because I did see it. Gene loved it but his review to me seems way over the top.

[@morgolus4413]

**SPOILERS For 2010** Wow! What a completely out to lunch pair of reviews. It appears that Roger sort of gets the picture through most of his coments but then they both agree that the end is a huge let down, with the aliens broadcasting the news on TV..... Did they miss the tiny detail of a second sun created in our solar system!!! Really!?! Sorry guys 2 thumbs down on this review. May they both RIP, of course.

[@zonzatfelz8241]

Gene Siskel didn’t review movies, he told you how he would remake them. So annoying When you can’t do something, tell others who can how badly they are doing it. He’s only redeeming contribution to film review is choosing babe pig in the city as the best film of the year. That took some vision, he got it.

[@gaarch919]

Gene Siskel was a troll.

[@JasonBagherian]

LOL

[@Wallyworld30]

He was a raging alcoholic perhaps he was hung over?

[@DavidTraynier]

Talk about giving away most of the film. What a poor choice of clips. I've never understood why Ebert was so down on the conclusion The film ends with a dramatic escape, the sinister consumption of Jupiter, the birth of a new star, the flowering of life on a new world, a message to humanity from its creators, and all with gorgeous visual effects.

[@Wallyworld30]

I thought it was a cool ending that I certainly wasn't expecting. I wonder what Siskel and Ebert thought would be a better ending? 2010 switches what the Monolith even is from 2001.

[@Hero3128]

HAL stole the show in both films.

[@reneedennis2011]

I haven't seen 2001: A Space Odyssey or 2010.

[@JasonBagherian]

You should see 2001 once in your lifetime but science fiction is not for everyone.

[@alex1520]

I wish hollywood would stop playing the sound of engines in space, its a vacuum, theres no sound out there! lol. They are still doing it today, a space scene and you hear the spaceship roar past. LOL...

[@mariop8101]

Simply can't stand 2001 just hate it, it's boring, to slow. 2010 was the movie I watch as a kid and loved it, made me read all Arthur c.Clarke books. 2010 and contact are my favourite sci fi movies of ever.

[@Wallyworld30]

I love both movies for very different reasons. 2001 is a masterpiece and it's last 20 minutes are very slow but it's a crazy movie you will pick up on something new every viewing. 2010 is all surface level and upfront about it's narrative which is fine but a completely different thing than 2001.

[@xstalkrx]

This sequel is insulting to 2001 and should have never been made

[@k1productions87]

I guess you never read the books, huh?

[@lelandthomosoniii4743]

Skinny,,, Ist Wrong!

[@Imagineering100]

This is a nothing movie that is why you here nothing about it.

[@davewanamaker3690]

Pretty disjointed movie review they did. One of their worst. Not very well done. Just jabbering.....